As usual, it’s not the message, it’s the mere existence of atheists

Atheists ratchet up rhetoric, use billboards to attack Republican politicians

Hang on there…”Go godless instead” is ratcheting up the rhetoric? It seems like a rather mild suggestion to me — presenting an extremist religious position and then offering an alternative is an entirely reasonable approach.

As for attacking Republican politicians…has CNN noticed that the religious right has staked itself out in the Republican party? If Democrats were saying things as stupid as the Republicans, I’m sure Dave Silverman would be ripping on them just as aggressively. And if the Republicans were not basing bad policy on religious dogma, there wouldn’t be much concern about them and they wouldn’t be appearing on those billboards.

“Go godless” hardly qualifies as rhetoric, & the religious nutjobs have made the statements which the media sees as an attack. So whoever wrote that “Atheists ratchet up rhetoric, use billboards to attack Republican politicians”, presumably sees the nutjob comments for what they really are, at a subconscious level. Too bad they don’t bring it into full consciousness, & realize the craziness of the religious mindset.

Atheists ratchet up rhetoric, use billboards to attack Republican politicians

The media culture in the US (not that it is much better over here in the UK with our screeching, bigoted red top papers) would be funny if it wasn’t so toxic – ‘Go Godless Instead’ is pretty mild, and hardly qualifies as ‘ratcheting up the rhetoric’. What Dan Merica is interpreting as ‘atheist rhetoric’ is simply the use of quotes of those Republican’s own words, and not statements ‘quote mined’ and deliberately taken out of context and distorted to misrepresent their positions – these quotes are very much in context and accurately convey the positions of the people they are attributes to. These fanatics are proud of their fundamentalism and make no effort to hide it.

It has gotten to the point now in the US that simply noting the publicly acknowledged (and invariably deeply bigoted and stupid) stance of Republicans on the issues is characterised as some cynical, manipulative political attack rather than a simple statement of the facts, while the most monstrously inaccurate and defamatory lies (not to mention violent or even outright elimantionist rhetoric) can be spouted by the xians and the media doesn’t even lift an eyebrow most of the time.

As an example, Merica goes on to discuss the quote attributed to Palin;

In one billboard, a picture of Palin is featured on the left, with a quote attributed to her. “We should create law based on the God of the Bible,” the quote reads. Underneath the graphic is a tag line “GO GODLESS INSTEAD.”

The billboard, however, misquotes Palin. In an interview with Fox News’ Bill O’Reilly, Palin addressed the growth in American secularism by saying America’s founding fathers “would create law based on the God of the Bible and the Ten Commandments,” not “should.”

Talk about a distinction without a difference – is Merica seriously trying to claim that Sarah Palin – a known evangelical fundamentalist – is not in favour of shoehorning her religion into America’s legal system by any means possible? Palin pratically defies the founding fathers; when she says that this is what the founding fathers would do, what she is really saying is that it is what modern America should be doing.

Here is the the Young Turk video about the interview – it seems pretty clear to me that Palin is stating that America is based upon christianity, and that by implication US law should be based upon the bible. I simply can’t imagine how Merica missed that…

If Democrats were saying things as stupid as the Republicans, I’m sure Dave Silverman would be ripping on them just as aggressively.

A common tactic would be to look for a Democratic leader saying something stoopid in the interest of “balance.” But you would have to look hard to find a Dem offering what the Republicans are serving up in heaping helpings on a regular basis. Like Michael Shermer’s recent weak attempt to report a “liberal war on science,” it would take so much effort to present such “balance” that it would be dishonest.

The billboard, however, misquotes Palin. In an interview with Fox News’ Bill O’Reilly, Palin addressed the growth in American secularism by saying America’s founding fathers “would create law based on the God of the Bible and the Ten Commandments,” not “should.”

Well, gee Sister Sarah, maybe they would have if they had wanted to, but I don’t see the evidence.

The quote from Palin in context reads: “Go back to what our founders and our founding documents meant– they’re quite clear– that we would create law based on the God of the Bible and the Ten Commandents, it’s quite simple.”

Although she did say it as a jussive subjunctive, the exact wording she used was “would” and not “should.” However, if you ask me, it’s clear from the context that she is imploring us to create law based on the Bible, in her reasoning, because this is what the Founding Fathers meant for us to do.

Of course. I was half tempted to troll the person who brought up Hitler, Stalin, Mao, et al. and suggest incarceration and/or extermination of all atheists to see if it was possible to elicit any humanity from those people, but I’m far more afraid that they’d agree with that suggestion.

When the “media” makes comments like that with that kind of slant my sense of incredulity “how could they be serious?” suggests to me that if they are not reactionary hacks themselves they make the comments slanted out of fear of the vindictive nature of the far right.
There is also the other possibility of starting a big yelling match controversy and its plus for their bottom line.
What ever the motivation I can speculate about one thing is pretty clear it ain’t truth.

Talk about a distinction without a difference – is Merica seriously trying to claim that Sarah Palin – a known evangelical fundamentalist – is not in favour of shoehorning her religion into America’s legal system by any means possible? Palin pratically defies the founding fathers; when she says that this is what the founding fathers would do, what she is really saying is that it is what modern America should be doing.

While that’s a perfectly reasonable assumption in regards to Palin, it’s still not what she said. It’s still not a quote. It’s still not mysterious, or obscure, or hard to verify. If it’s an interpretation, it shouldn’t be in quotes.

We are free – and I think rightly so – to dislike it when one of ‘ours’ is misquoted by one of ‘theirs’. We consider it questionable (at best) when they change a quote based on their assumptions about what we think. And we often consider it dishonest if it the sort of thing that’s easy to check and presented prominently.
I honestly don’t know if AA put up a billboard with an incorrect quote knowing that they did or not knowing that they did.
Either was preventable, either is wrong.

How can I trust you with power when in your mind any wrongdoings you may indulge in, no matter how heinous, can be forgiven simply by your asking your imaginary friend to wave his magic wand over you to make it all okay?

“No, I don’t know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God.”

I’m glad they didn’t use that, since the question has never been settled whether it’s true or not. Reported by a single reporter, (Rob Sherman, American Atheist News Journal), from an airport tarmac, at a campaign stop by Bush in 1988, there was no recording of it, nor did any of the other reporters who were there report hearing it. It’s possible Bush Sr. felt that way, but whether he actually said that is dubious at best.

We consider it questionable (at best) when they change a quote based on their assumptions about what we think. And we often consider it dishonest if it the sort of thing that’s easy to check and presented prominently.

absolute and utter bullshit you have written here.

When those of us here have criticized the right for misquoting, it is because the quotes are being used to ascribe an OPPOSITE meaning to what the author meant in context. That’s called quotemining.

There is NO POSSIBLE way you can construe changing “would” to “should” in that quote from Palin as changing the meaning of what she said to something opposite from context.

Reported by a single reporter, (Rob Sherman, American Atheist News Journal), from an airport tarmac, at a campaign stop by Bush in 1988, there was no recording of it, nor did any of the other reporters who were there report hearing it.

notable is the fact that Bush himself never denied having said it. Nor did anybody else ever contradict Sherman.

Moreover, lawsuits were filed relating to the incident, and the judge didn’t at the time didn’t think it irrelevant.

and… Bush was asked for an apology for saying that, and not only didn’t he deny it, but his aide replied with:

“As you are aware, the President is a religious man who neither supports atheism nor believes that atheism should be unnecessarily encouraged or supported by the government.

so.. yeah, maybe not worth playing up, but not worthy of dismissal either.

the slighted group, AA, still has the history of the exchanges on file (examples copied to this website):

No, no, Corpsemada is going to be the new secretary of defense on the Repub ticket. They are apparently trying to cobble together the remains of Greg Bahnsen, Cornelius van Til, and…well, Ted Nugent (shush, he’s braindead) for President.

When those of us here have criticized the right for misquoting, it is because the quotes are being used to ascribe an OPPOSITE meaning to what the author meant in context. That’s called quotemining.

Or, they are being taken out of context to shade the meanings into something the quoter prefers. Or that the quoter believes the quotee actually thinks but refuses to say.
Changing someone’s quote to more closely match what you think they believe is not honest. Even just a little bit, yes.

There is NO POSSIBLE way you can construe changing “would” to “should” in that quote from Palin as changing the meaning of what she said to something opposite from context.

You are incorrect.
The argument can be made that the founding fathers meant to create law based on the bible. It’s a bad argument, but it can be made.
And the person making that argument can disagree with their motives in doing so.
A person would therefore say “would” instead of “should”.

sorry, but your response is disingenuous twaddle.

So, this is an acceptable misquote?
Why bother if they get the quote yanno, close enough – they really shouldn’t be expected to be right, right?

I’m not saying the quote presented isn’t similar to what she actually said. It is.
I’m saying they presented it as a direct quote. It isn’t.

She said something quite specific. The quote’s available. They didn’t get it right. No amount of coulda, woulda, shoulda, changes that. They’re making assumptions about what she thinks, and they’re presenting it as a direct quote. That’s careless if done accidentally, and dishonest if done purposefully.

Bullshit. The Republican Party does not have a policy of excluding same-sex-attracted people from membership, they do not claim to have no same-sex-attracted members, and they do not claim to have no members who will ever break the law.

Wait, how is it homophobic to note closeted behavior?

It’s homophobic to use the personal tragedy of a closeted man as a bludgeon to attack one’s political opponents. That’s not showing concern for same-sex-attracted people’s lives or the tragedy of widespread public homophobia that pushes some of us into risky behaviors. It’s merely showing delight at finding another weapon to attack political opponents.

Just criticism them for having policies which hurt gay people; that’s the real problem with them. Don’t act so excited to use one man’s self-destructive behavior — a man who has undoubtedly lived a very sad and painful life — as a bludgeon to indict the party for alleged hypocrisy.

Overt raging homophobes are critical of hypocrisy too; pointing out hypocrisy isn’t a pro-gay activity. I remember the excitement when Craig was arrested. Plenty of homophobes were absolutely delighted to have a spectacle to talk about. Making jokes about him only signals interest in the spectacle. It doesn’t make you any better than insufferable homophobes like Jimmy Kimmel or Bill Maher. “Ha ha! He’s gay!” It’s tiresome, get over it.

Dear ostensible liberals: you can signal that you’re not a homophobe by doing what homophobes won’t do: just criticize the party for their destructive policies.

I don’t understand what CNN is fussing about. All the photos they selected of these people are quite becoming.

It isn’t as if its anywhere nearly as grotesquely sincere as any routine newsmax poll ad, for example…

Oh, i see… one has to read it in order to appreciate how diabolical and unfair the billboard is to point out what these innocent public figures think. How dare those nasty atheists sneak a fast one in under the camouflage of toothy smiles. What a low blow cheap shot.

CNN is sensitive to protecting the interests of their respected viewers, whom they know as well and esteem as much as anyone in the commercial industry. Selling news is hard thankless work. Poor things, they struggle so to squeeze content out of appearance. Keeping up with FOX is exhausting.